Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

111 FILIPINA Y. SY vs.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE REGIONAL attempt by respondent against her life, and abandonment of her by her husband
TRIAL COURT, SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA, BRANCH XLI, and FERNANDO SY 330 scra 550 without justifiable cause for more than one year.
G.R. No. 127263  RTC granted the petition and issued a decree of legal separation. Custody of the
April 12, 2000 daughter was awarded to the mother while the son, to the father.
Topic: Rule 132 Sec. 22 How genuineness of handwriting proved and Sec. 34- Offer of  4 Aug. 19920 Filipina filed a petition for the declaration of absolute nullity of her
evidence (I am not sure how it was related to Sec. 22) marriage to Fernando on the ground of psychological incapacity. She points out
Jess that the final judgment rendered by RTC in her favor, in her petitions for separation
of property and legal separation, and Fernando's infliction of physical violence on
Facts: her which led to the conviction of her husband for slight physical injuries are
 Petitioner Filipina Sy and private respondent Fernando SY contracted marriage on symptoms of psychological incapacity. She also cites as manifestations of her
15 Nov. 1973 at the Church of Our Lady of Lourdes in QC. Both were then 22 yrs. husband's psychological incapacity the following: (1) habitual alcoholism; (2) refusal
old. They eventually had 2 children, Federick anf Farrah Sheryll who were born on 8 to live with her without fault on her part, choosing to live with his mistress instead;
July 1975 and 14 Feb. 1978. and (3) refusal to have sex with her, performing the marital act only to satisfy
 Sps. Had their residence first in Singalong, in Apalit, Pampanga and then at San himself. Moreover, Filipina alleges that such psychological incapacity of her
Matias, Sto. Tomas Pampanga. They operated a lumber and hardware store in Sto. husband existed from the time of the celebration of their marriage and became
Tomas Pampanga. manifest thereafter.
 15 Sept. 1983- Fernando left their conjugal dwelling. Sps. Lived separately since  RTC denied the petition and held that the alleged acts of the husband do not
then and the two children were in the mother’s custody. However, their son constitute psychological incapacity to warrant the absolute nullity of marriage.
Frederick transferred to his father’s residence at Masangkay, Tondo, Manila on 15 Upon appeal, CA affirmed the RTC decision. CA held that petitioner failed to show
May 1988 and lived with his father ever since. that the alleged psychological incapacity of respondent had existed at the time of
 11 Feb. 19870 Filipina filed a petition for legal separation before RTC San Fernando the celebration of their marriage in 1973. It reiterated the finding of the trial court
Pampanga and was later amended to a petition for separation of property upon her that the couple's marital problems surfaced only in 1983, or almost ten years from
motion on the ground that her husband abandoned her without cause and that the date of the celebration of their marriage. And prior to their separation in 1983,
they have been living separately for more than 1 year. She also alleged that they they were living together harmoniously.
voluntarily entered into a Memorandum of Agreement on 29 Sept. 1983, Issues:
containing the rules that would govern the dissolution of their conjugal 1. W/N the marriage between petitioner and private respondent is void from the beginning
partnership. Judgment was rendered dissolving their conjugal partnership of gains for lack of a marriage license at the time of the ceremony; and
and approving a regime of separation of properties based on the Memorandum of 2. W/N private respondent is psychologically incapacitated at the time of said marriage
Agreement executed by the spouses. Custody of the children was granted to the celebration to warrant a declaration of its absolute nullity.
mother. Ruling: CA decision is set aside.
 In May 1988, Filipina filed a criminal action for attempted parricide against her 1. Yes.
husband before RTC Manila. She testified that in the afternoon of 15 May 1988, she  Petitioner for the first time on appeal raises the issue of marriage from being void
went to her husband’s dental clinic but operated by her husband’s mistress, to for lack of a valid marriage license at the time of its celebration. According to her,
fetch her son and bring the son to Pampanga. However, while she was speaking the date of the actual celebration of their marriage and the date of issuance of
with her son, the son ignored her because the boy was busy playing with the family their marriage cert. and marriage license are different and incongruous. It is a rule
computer. Filipina got mad, took the computer away and spanked her son. Her that a litigant cannot raise an issue for the first time on appeal but here, the Court
husband got mas and punched her in diff. parts of her body and alleged that her have relaxed the observance of procedural rule to promote substantive rights of
husband started choking her when she fell. Her husband released only when he litigants. Note that the pertinent facts in this case are not disputed and what is
thought that she was dead. required now is a declaration of their effects according to existing law.
 Filipina suffered from hematoma and contusions on different parts of her body as a  Petitioner contends that these dates were in the documents that were submitted in
result of the blows inflicted by her husband, evidenced by a Medical Certificate court. The date of issue of the marriage license and marriage certificate,
issued by a certain Dr. James Ferraren. She said it was not the first time Fernando September 17, 1974, is contained in their marriage contract which was attached as
maltreated her. Annex "A" in her petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage before the
 RTC despite the allegation only convicted her husband of slight physical injuries and trial court, and thereafter marked as Exhibit "A" in the course of the trial. The date
sentenced him to 20 days imprisonment. of celebration of their marriage at Our Lady of Lourdes, Sta. Teresita Parish, on
 Petitioner thereafter filed a new action for legal separation against private November 15, 1973, is admitted by both parties as stated in par. 3 of petitioner’s
respondent based on the following: repeated physical violence, sexual infidelity, petition for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage before the trial court,
and private respondent's answer admitting it. This fact was also affirmed in the
direct examination of the petitioner Filipina.
 November 15, 1973, also appears as the date of marriage of the parents in both
their son's and daughter's birth certificates, which are also attached as Annexes
"B" and "C" in the petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage before
the trial court, and thereafter marked as Exhibits "B" and "C" in the course of the
trial. These pieces of evidence on record plainly and indubitably show that on the
day of the marriage ceremony, there was no marriage license. A marriage license
is a formal requirement; its absence renders the marriage void ab initio. In
addition, the marriage contract shows that the marriage license, numbered
6237519, was issued in Carmona, Cavite, yet, neither petitioner nor private
respondent ever resided in Carmona.
 From the documents Filipina presented, the marriage license was issued on
September 17, 1974, almost one year after the ceremony took place on
November 15, 1973. The ineluctable conclusion is that the marriage was indeed
contracted without a marriage license. Nowhere do we find private respondent
denying these dates on record. Article 80 of the Civil Code is clearly applicable in
this case. There being no claim of an exceptional character, the purported marriage
between petitioner and private respondent could not be classified among those
enumerated in Articles 72-79 of the Civil Code. We thus conclude that under Article
80 of the Civil Code, the marriage between petitioner and private respondent is
void from the beginning.
 Also, from the documents she presented, the marriage license was issued on
September 17, 1974, almost one year after the ceremony took place on November
15, 1973. The ineluctable conclusion is that the marriage was indeed contracted
without a marriage license. Nowhere do we find private respondent denying these
dates on record. Article 80 of the Civil Code is clearly applicable in this case. There
being no claim of an exceptional character, the purported marriage between
petitioner and private respondent could not be classified among those enumerated
in Articles 72-79 of the Civil Code. We thus conclude that under Article 80 of the
Civil Code, the marriage between petitioner and private respondent is void from
the beginning.
2.
Issue of psychological incapacity of private respondent need no longer detain this court. It is
mooted by our conclusion that the marriage of petitioner to respondent is void ab void for
lack of a marriage license at the time their marriage was solemnized.